McCain, Feinstein Debate Terrorist Trials

ABC ^ | July 2, 2006

[ncountylee]

July 2, 2006 — Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., predicted Congress will act swiftly to reverse the Supreme Court's declaration that President Bush exceeded his authority by ordering military tribunals for the approximately 400 detainees held in Guantanamo Bay.

"We're gonna have hearings, we're going to examine the court decision very carefully," McCain said in an exclusive appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "I am confident that we can make sure that bad guys … are not released … and those that deserve to be released will be."

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the Bush administration overstepped their bounds, saying in the majority decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens that the administration contradicted both U.S. law and the Geneva Convention. The case itself was brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a known associate of Osama bin Laden who has been held in Guantanamo for four years. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who backed the government in a previous decision at the appeals level, withdrew from the Supreme Court case.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also appearing exclusively on "This Week," said the Supreme's Court's decision is significant.

"The Court's opinion was a very major opinion, and basically what it said was that the president exceeded his authority," she said.

"It's pretty clear to me that the Congress has to act and should act," she added.

McCain sounded a cautiously optimistic tone, repeatedly arguing that Congress could forge a compromise.

"I think we can sit down together, we can work this out," he said.

[ncountylee]

Once again my Senator, Feinstein, embarrassed the state by making zero sense.

[mewzilla]

"We're gonna have hearings, we're going to examine the court decision very carefully," McCain said in an exclusive appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "I am confident that we can make sure that bad guys … are not released … and those that deserve to be released will be."

Snort.

I thought that's what we've been doing all long, McKeating...er, McCain.

[DC Bound]

If the executive branch is coequal to the other two, why can't it just tell the Supreme Court to go ahead and try to enforce its ruling. Isn't that what past presidents did when the courts encroached?

[indianrightwinger]

What? Mr. McPain is not going to propose an amendment to Senate bill calling for immediate stop of abuse?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Every now and then Feinstein will have a moment of clarity and remind Californians that she's the less wacko of the two CA socialist Senators. Unfortunately, she didn't do it here.

[Reactionary]

Leave it to the liberals at the AP to spew about fellow liberals' vaunted "humanitarian concern" for the terrorist animals.

The usual degenerate Leftist swill.

[Laverne]

I would guess that based on this ruling, if not before, that President Bush has signed an executive order stating that AQ and terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Recall, he just overrode the supremes kelo decision by signing an executive order.....

I'm still miffed beyond words that Kenedy went along with this -- the other lefties I undertand, but for Kennedy to reach and give AQ geneva coverage, after the terrorists just tortured and mutilated our troops, is beyond understanding.

None-the-less, I heard one congresscritter already say that the supremes had no right to even decide this case, so it can be ignored. I expect it will be fixed. I would guess that Roberts is quite embarrased by his colleagues on the USSC. We haven't heard the last of it. Between this story and the NYTimes revealing classified information, it should be an interesting next few weeks. I expect Risen and Lichtblau to be sent to prison soon, and I eagerly look forward to it.

[HawaiianGecko]

"The Court's opinion was a very major opinion, and basically what it said was that the president exceeded his authority,"

I have to giggle a bit at all the hyperbole and spinning from the left on this decision. It's not like they rebuked the President. They said, "hey technically you can't do this, but you don't have to let the guy go, nor do you have to let the others in Gitmo go, you don't have to shut down Gitmo either... In fact we suggest you go to congress and get this authority and then hang the guy. And while we're at it, this only applies to Hamdan."

No where in majority opinion did anyone say the President overstepped his bounds.  For crying out loud, to use that logic says that anyone that loses in any argument overstepped their bounds and are being rightly rebuked.

 

 

[lilylangtree]

A RINO and a LIB debating. For cryin' out loud, there can't be a debate with both sides agreein' w/each other.

[DC Bound]

The problem I see with "fixing it" is that if it takes congressional approval for the president to manage a war the congress has already approved, his authority has effectively been lessened. Future opponents will be able to cite precedent. There are two reasons to have a single executive: accountability and speed. Forcing congress to debate and approve of war fighting tactics is outside their expertise and nixes the very reason to have an executive in charge. The only answer is for the president to say the SC had no jurisdiction and the Congress has no capacity. If congress passes anything at all on the subject, he should make it his first veto and say "not necessary."

[Defiant]

The Geneva Conventions were considered necessary because in their absence, it was assumed that warring parties would be cruel to their captives. It was also assumed that if one side took refuge in civilian populations, the other side would pursue them there, and kill lots of civilians in the process.

Sadly, because we have been neutered since Vietnam, we treat all prisoners humanely and when terrorists hide in civilian centers, without wearing insignia or gathering separately from civilians, we don't attack them anyway. There remains, therefore, no use to the Geneva Convention. It doesn't apply to our enemies, and we follow it no matter what. This is more true with the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision.

We will know we are serious about this war when we destroy whole villages bacause terrorists are sheltered within. We did it to Atlanta 150 years ago and all of Germany 60 years ago. If push comes to shove, maybe we can remember what it's like to have the will to win a war. I know our fighting men know how; the politicians are the ones who fight to lose.

[depressed in 06]

"The Court's opinion was a very major opinion, and basically what it said was that the president exceeded his authority," she said. "It's pretty clear to me that the Congress has to act and should act," she added.

By letting the President do what he wanted to do in the first place? It will be fun to watch the Bolshecrats argue to let these guys go.

The more egregious ruling was that the Geneva Convention applies to something it itself says does not apply.